The author says in this whole article that the film pursues a sort of racist standard against middle-easterners and supports conflict and opinions against them. First off, i think it's important to remember that this conflict, while stylized heavily in the movie, did happen. There was a conflict, the battle took place, and was part of a great war between two very different cultures, at odds mostly for reasons of incompatibility. Even in the frames of the movie though, Spartans fight out of desire to protect their dominance in their society, their honor. Their freedom.They do not fight the Persian army because they hate the Persians. They fight the Persians because this massive army arrives on their doorstep and their character compels them not to subordinate themselves to the opposing force. This is congruent with Spartan ideals. Regardless of the film's historical depiction of the battle, the mores of the Spartan are more or less in line with what History tells us, though maybe tempered with some more modern twists. I think in the end, I would have a hard time calling the film racist--at least for the reasons the author describes here. Spartans are fiercely independent as portrayed, and consider themselves better warriors than their neighbors. This quality can be confused by the viewer as xenophobia, but I think pride is a more apt term. In the end, does the film depict Persians as the "bad guy"? Yeah. And it does so by assigning the bad guy the opposite values of the Spartans. Those values would've been assigned to whomever the bad guy was. In this case we have historical grounding for the choice made. I guess personally, I view 300 as a film. Art. On some level, all movies are made to communicate a message, and that message hinges on the viewer's ability to interpret it. All great art is grounded in knowledge, and especially in references to other art, history, pop culture, etc. It needs to form connections existing parts of people's minds. This places a burden of responsibility on the viewer to discern well what the movie is saying, rather than simply view it as an emotional ride and visual spectacle. In my experience watching the movie, I don't walk out of the theater saying, "Man, it really makes you want to slice up some Persians" because Persians are the worst people on earth, and how could they be so bad. It does, however, make me say, "Man, if it came down to it, I would really love to be able to fight some bad guy like that". To me, this is, however, the same idea, just with different phrasing. It appeals to our culture's understanding of masculinity and honor. It makes a male viewer desire the body and skills he's just seen portrayed. Now, importantly, I did not grow up at a time when culture was influencing my thoughts post 9/11. Maybe if I'd been older at that time, I would've identified more with the Spartans fighting Middle-Easteners. And maybe Frank Miller should have thought that through, thought about how that choice would link to the modern world. Maybe, as his NPR interview suggests, he does think America should stand up in defense of itself. But again, I think that's pride speaking. I don't think it's racism. While Frank Miller could arguably be called racist (which is pretty subjective from just one interview), and is certainly not very well educated about Islamic History (again, mere words being spoken in an interview situation so not necessarily represent 100% of the man's ideas), I don't think his Spartans are racist, nor misunderstanding. They see a threat of their masculinity. That's really all Leoinides responds to. Xerxes makes him an offer he almost can't refuse, he seems to have actually thought about it. He simply won't kneel. Thus, Miller may be racist, but his Spartans aren't. Elitist yes, prideful certainly. But I'm not quite getting a racism vibe.

The author addresses something pretty big here but doesn't expand on it. The theme of freedom is significant for the Spartans in the face of the Persian advance, deeply rooted in their ideas about masculinity. However, the theme as it is presented seems more at home in a fictional depiction of the American Revolution than it does in Sparta. The film draws out a subtle theme from history and mixes in a myriad of more modern variations on the same theme. I've heard critiques of 300 as being significantly inaccurate. The juxtaposition (and this whole article) reminds me that it wasn't meant to be accurate. It was meant to address different ideas, especially via contrast. And it was adapted from a graphic novel to begin with, so maybe looking at the themes present in that depiction would be more significant. I think the producers did an impressive thing using an ancient topic to convey a modern theme. Just as values are contrasted between Persia and Sparta, I also think the juxtaposition of modern upon ancient is a tool we can use to further examine our own culture and how these values effect decisions and events today.